David Barton has dedicated his life to what may be considered hot button issues today. He highlights the secular historical revisionism preeminent in academia, the religious intolerance in the public sphere and the need to get back to sensible moral principles as a country. His new book, The Jefferson Lies, has sparked debates related to these subjects.Thomas Jefferson is controversial for a number of reasons. He is the one who wrote of a wall of separation between church and state. However, this quote was in a personal letter, not the US Constitution. And the US Supreme court seems to have misinterpreted its meaning. The actual Jefferson quote seems to imply that the proverbial wall was meant to keep government from interfering with people's beliefs. However, the government has interpreted this wall as a reason to separate people from the reasonable exercise of their own beliefs. In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson states."I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Another controversial aspect of Jefferson's life is The Jefferson Bible. Towards the end of his life, Jefferson published an ad-hoc Bible based on cutting and pasting numerous sections from various Bibles as extractions which eliminated and/or revised books, chapters and verses he did not agree with or felt were inaccurate. So, in a very real sense, Jefferson himself was a revisionist.While I agree with Barton's underlying premise that secular humanist institutions have utilized extreme historical revisionism, I do not agree with all of Barton's points and find evidence that some Founding Fathers were involved in the occult. Nevertheless, that does not discount the fact that the true spiritual history of the Founding Fathers and Puritans should not be examined and taught in academia.Tags: The Jefferson Lies, David Barton Tops Google Trends, David Barton on the Daily Show, historical revisionism, civil rights abuses, religious intolerance, quote: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists

62 comments:

To begin my debunking of Barton’s new book, I picked the chapter titled “Lie #2: Thomas Jefferson Founded a Secular University,” and there are so may lies in just this one chapter that my video on it ended up being nearly two hours long. There was just no way to adequately debunk all these lies any quicker. When I make shorter videos, the Barton defenders say I didn’t provide enough information; when I make longer videos that go into all the details, they say they’re too long and boring. So, I really can’t win with a lot of those people. But, for those who want a thorough debunking, that’s what I’m doing here. My video even contains footnotes, which appear on a blackboard behind me every time I’m quoting something. This is to preempt the comments I usually get saying, “Barton has lots of footnotes so he must be telling the truth.”

It seems that quotes by Jefferson himself prove that the University of Virginia did not operate as a secular institution:

"As Jefferson explained:

In conformity with the principles of our constitution which places all sects [denominations] of religion on an equal footing – with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the legislature in favor of freedom of religion manifested on former occasions [as in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom] – we have proposed no Professor of Divinity. 11

But the fact that the school would have no Professor of Divinity did not mean that religious instruction would not take place. To the contrary, Jefferson personally ensured that religious instruction would occur, directing that the teaching of . . .

the proofs of the being of a God – the Creator, Preserver, and Supreme Ruler of the Universe – the Author of all the relations of morality and of the laws and obligations these infer – will be within the province of the Professor of Ethics. 12"

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=21076

Reynold, would you consider teaching, "the proofs of the being of a God – the Creator, Preserver, and Supreme Ruler of the Universe " as a secular goal?

Reynold, If you would like to provide specific evidence that Barton has misquoted Jefferson, please provide text links, not video links.

As I mentioned to Doug Indeap, below, I would agree that Barton tends to see the Founding Fathers through rose colored glasses to some degree. And while he sometimes mentions points that do not have solid historical verification, I believe he does offer more in the way of valid points that are based on valid references.

Despite his shortcomings, I do agree with Barton's overall thesis, that the secular humanist establishment uses extreme historical revisionism to expunge the mention of God and mitigate the effects of true Christianity on the population.

Well...Rick has proven a long time ago that he does not care about truth. Rational people start with evidence, make a hypothesis, check it and make a coclusion. Religious people start with a conclusion and look for any kind of evidence, no matter how faulty, to justify their conclusion. They do not care if it is true or false.

Barton again? This zealot's "work" has been so thoroughly, repeatedly, and authoritatively debunked by so many who have demonstrated it to be riddled with slipshod research, shoddy analysis, and downright dishonestly that I can but wonder how anyone can refer to him as an "authority" on this subject without turning red from embarrassment. Perhaps the handiest debunking is Chris Rodda's book, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/), where she conveniently collects and directly refutes his many mistakes and lies. The irony is that, by knowingly, repeatedly resorting to lies, this would-be champion of a religious right version of history reveals his fears that the real facts fall short of making his case. His own lying is perhaps the best evidence that his overall thesis is wrong.

While I would agree that Barton tends to see the Founding Fathers through rose colored glasses to some degree. And while he sometimes mentions points that do not have solid historical verification, I believe he does offer more in the way of valid points that are based on valid references.

Despite his shortcomings, I do agree with Barton's overall thesis, that the secular humanist establishment uses extreme historical revisionism to expunge the mention of God and mitigate the effects of true Christianity on the population.

Barton's overall thesis is historical revisionism at it's best (worst). He pushes it to advance his dominionist agenda (and make $$$$ from the ignorant rubes who buy his ahistorical rubbish).

Barton doesn't seem to care one whit about what actually occurred historically, he cares about obtaining a specific outcome today. If that outcome can only be obtained by lying about history, then so be as far as Barton is concerned.

Rick WardenReynold, If you would like to provide specific evidence that Barton has misquoted Jefferson, please provide text links, not video links.Idiotic, absolutely idiotic...any excuse to avoid the truth, eh?

I should have seen this coming. Well, this TEXT link, especially chapters 12 and 13 provide more evidence that Barton and those like him lie about the founding fathers, among other things.

Note how Warden has moved the goalposts here: At first, it was "Reynold, If you would like to provide specific evidence that Barton has misquoted Jefferson, please provide text links, not video links." now it's "Can you please summarize the specific point or points you are referring to with a note to the page or source? That would be helpful. Thanks.".

I could point something out from the video but you already said you won't accept that for some reason, so what can I do?

You seem to have this aspect in common with other atheists who frequent this blog, you seem to like to have others do your homework and research for you. If you cannot post a single quote or summary of an idea, why should I waste my time chasing rabbit holes that have no rabbit or shaking trees that have no fruit?

People who tend to just post links with no quotes or summary are usually do not have anything of substance to offer I've found. If you have something of substance to offer, you should probably be able to summarize the idea.

But herein lies a fundamental problem with atheist apologists that's even deeper. Atheist apologists cannot even summarize their own logical understanding of reality. Such was the case of Stephen Law, the most recent example. 5 times I politely asked him for a summary of just one argument for atheist. The result? Nothing.

So what does this say about the truth of his ideas and your ideas. If people cannot logically summarize an idea, the logical conclusion is that the idea is not true.

If you cannot post a single quote or summary of an idea, why should I waste my time chasing rabbit holes that have no rabbit or shaking trees that have no fruit?

And yet, when people do post links, you ignore them. Or at least, you ignore me. ;)

If people cannot logically summarize an idea, the logical conclusion is that the idea is not true.

Considering the regular problems you have summarizing your ideas in a useful fashion (as you are constantly having to revise your summaries in the face of obvious flaws), I suggest you watch what conclusion you draw.

In the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.

Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address valid critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence". However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.

Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics). If a third person, a civilized person, believes that Havok has offered a valid argument, I would be willing to entertain it. In any event, Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.

Don't push it. You have not provided one actual quote of mine to substantiate that claim. If you don't provide a quote to back up your claim here, then I don't see any point in attempting to dialogue with another uncivilized atheist commenter such as Havok.

Show me one quote where I have slandered PZ and made a false, unsubstantiated claim about him. Provide an actual quote and a link.

You are falsely slandering other people, and when called on it, you are calling me "uncivilized"?

Show me one quote where I have slandered PZ and made a false, unsubstantiated claim about him. Provide an actual quote and a link.It was the topic of an entire post!

PZ Myers is apparently not opposed to bestiality

For those who care about truth and context:here should help settle things.

Especially this quote from a Myer's poster in the comment about his not saying anything about how zoophiles should go to jail (his silence on this matter seems to be at least part of what Warden builds his "case" on):PZ Myers condones creationism, pseudoscience, and Biblical literalism. He's actually written that it shouldn't be criminalized, nor the perpetrators put in jail. So let's photoshop his head onto a televangelist and all have a snicker. That's where it leads, that sort of condoning.

Then here you make it worse by going after his daughter:PZ Myer's daughter supports legalized bestiality.

Then, here, where I posted his daughter's response that she is actually against bestiality, you went and said:The quote you referenced seems to have been an attempt by Skatje Myers at damage control.

I like when you said:You see, Reynold, in your confirmation bias, your capabilities for logical deduction seem a bit weak.I'm not the one who when faced with the quote where she flat out says that she does not support bestiality, goes and says that she's doing "damage control". You are the one who's still trying to pin that on her.

I had said to you once before:Oh wait, let me guess: You're pretending that PZ is actually considering bestiality according to his belief that "nothing must be held sacred", right?

Have you given any thought that the man has decided to reject that idea, and has decided instead to mock it? I mean let's face it: It doesn't take a biology major (and Myers is a biology professor) to know that humans and animals aren't compatible, and that any mating is not only impossible, but as any decent person knows: Any mating that does not have informed consent is disasterous for the morale and well-being of the other person involved.

And I'm sure even you know that animals can't give informed consent.

Not that any of this will stop you from your continued well-poisoning: You're just trying to justify your continued use of it.

As I said once before: If you are trying to give the impression that Myers is supportive of bestiality, I want a quote, in context, that shows his express APPROVAL of it!

Reynold, I asked you for a specific quote to substantiate your accusation against me and this is the quote you provided:

PZ Myers is apparently not opposed to bestiality

Let me offer a few points to try and see exactly where you have a problem.

1. PZ Myers has voluntarily posted on the subject of bestiality at his blog.

(PZ described a man "possessing "an 'extreme pornographic' image of someone having sex with a dead octopus or squid." PZ offered, "Erotic art with cephalopods has a long history...I'd also recommend looking up the work of Hokusai, Teraoka, or Saeki (but not if you live in England! That could land you in jail)."[12]

2. At his blog there was a controversy in which one aspect of the controversy was the morality of the subject of bestiality.

3. Though he has voluntarily written on the subject, and though the question of its morality has been asked at his blog, PZ Myers has never stated his moral position on bestiality.

4. Therefore, it would seem most likely that PZ Myers is not opposed to bestiality.

5. When someone is opposed to something, they most likely would voice such an opinion when given frequent opportunities to do so.

6. If someone is apathetic towards something, then he is not against it. The maxim is - silence equals consent.

7. Silence on a subject would offer either indifference or agreement as the most likely answers, not opposition.

In terms of PZ Myers' daughter, let's consider what she wrote herself:

"I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn't actually matter to me."

You at first wrongly stated that was not her writing, but I noted that it was taken from her blog.

Them Reynold, you misquoted her. You said,

There, she outright says: I do not support bestiality.

No, she does not say "I do not support bestiality."

You have a vivid imagination when it comes to trying to make a point. This is what she actually wrote:

"I don't tell people that it's a good thing to have sex with animals, nor a bad thing. I'm entirely apathetic about it."

What she is attempting to do is to clarify that there is a vast difference (in her opinion) between her personal feelings on the subject and other people's legal rights.

And in her follow up quote she does not deny her support of legalized bestiality, she just makes it clear, again, she is personally apathetic towards it (even though it should be legal for others, as she had stated previously).

Instead of looking at the actual specific words, Reynold, you tend to be a bit sloppy in your interpretations based on your presuppositions.

Your last comment is an example:

As I said once before: If you are trying to give the impression...

No, Reynold. Stop reading into things. Each word has a specific meaning and each phrase has a specific context. Try to think along those lines rather than

"Oh, he's trying to make an impression, therefore, I'll judge him based on his motives rather than on the words he actually writes..."

Reynold, You have failed to show that I have slandered anyone with unjust accusations. On the contrary, you have revealed that you have a serious bias problem when it comes to interpreting the meaning of other people's words.

Now I asked you once before how the rest of the quote (where I "misquoted" Skatje) helps your case.

She says: (entire post now):I don't tell people that it's a good thing to have sex with animals, nor a bad thing. I'm entirely apathetic about it.

Here's the fact: people tend to read "condone" as the strong opposite of "condemn." Yeah, you can find a definition in the dictionary like "accept," but people (and I'm guilty of this as well) tend to read condone as "support" or "encourage." I do not support bestiality.

Although that's what everyone's trying to make it look like I do. I guess squawking about "Those evil Darwinists will have all our children completely apathetic about bestiality! They won't even demand locking zoophiles up in prison!" doesn't sound as nice.

What do you say?No, she does not say "I do not support bestiality."

You have a vivid imagination when it comes to trying to make a point. This is what she actually wrote:

"I don't tell people that it's a good thing to have sex with animals, nor a bad thing. I'm entirely apathetic about it."

You left out the majoritiy of her comment including the part where she says (in italics yet, the part you ignored): I do not support bestiality.

She then goes on to predict the behaviour of people like you:Although that's what everyone's trying to make it look like I do. I guess squawking about "Those evil Darwinists will have all our children completely apathetic about bestiality! They won't even demand locking zoophiles up in prison!" doesn't sound as nice.Let's settle this then:

This is my email (sakkiidit@hotmail.com), registered under a different name to avoid people, well, like you, generally.

You made the claim that Skatjie supports bestiality. When I argued using her comments from Myer's blog, you accused me of "misquoting" her, claiming that she never said that she does not support bestiality. (which she does say, as is obvious by now).

So: I want you to e-mail her (or her dad if you can't get a hold of her) and tell them just how I "misquoted" her.

Provide the link to her original comment in the Myer's thread plus the link to the comment where I "misquoted" her.

Send the email to both her and myself so that we can all be on the same page on this. You can also state what you believe her position is on this, based on your reading of her words, and she can tell you which one of us has "tends to be a bit sloppy in our interpretations based on our presuppositions"!

You made the claim, so as a "good moral" xian I'm sure you'd want the victim to know just how mistreated she was by an "uncivilized" atheist like me.

If she agrees that I misquoted her, then and only then will I apologize. If on the other hand, I have not misquoted her then you will have to apologize.

Then finally, we can get to the truth of the matter and we can see who really has trouble "interpreting the meaning of other people's words"!

Ok:6. If someone is apathetic towards something, then he is not against it. The maxim is - silence equals consent.Point shot down previously:

PZ Myers condones creationism, pseudoscience, and Biblical literalism. He's actually written that it shouldn't be criminalized, nor the perpetrators put in jail. So let's photoshop his head onto a televangelist and all have a snicker. That's where it leads, that sort of condoning.

Or his Myer's "silence" when he said:He's just got to dive into the Marianas Trench. Quote-mining (badly) my daughter isn't just ugly, it's vile and loathsome and despicable…but that's typical Cordova, now declared Asshole of the Year.Yep. That leaves all the doubt in the world about his actual views on bestiality!

Tell you the truth, that shoots down most of your points, doesn't it? You'll never admit it though.

After I wrote this: . If someone is apathetic towards something, then he is not against it. The maxim is - silence equals consent.

You wrote this:

>Point shot down previously:(with a link)

Here is what you linked to:

So then according to your post about More Evidence That False Philosophies Lead To Sick Societies so then would you be willing to agree that your philosophy is false then, do the the centuries of grief it'c caused: heretic killing, "witch"-killing, crusades, the murdering missionaries

- I'm not sure what connection you are attempting to make, Reynold. But I'll address what you linked to.

Killing heretics, witch killings, and murdering missionaries are not practices derived from the teaching of Christ and the works and teachings of Christ are the fulfillment of the law.

"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Mt 5:17).

Jesus fulfilled the law with his love, by offering his life on the cross. According to the new testament we are to love our enemies. There is no justification for killing witches or missionaries in the New Testament.

However, there is no objective basis for atheist morality ad therefore there is no objective basis for stating that bestiality is immoral according to relativistic materialistic atheism. You offered that evolution is the basis of your moral decision making with regard to bestiality, but evolution is a-moral and does not offer any logical basis for such types of universal moral decision making.

>Tell you the truth, that shoots down most of your points, doesn't it?

Rick: Jesus fulfilled the law with his love, by offering his life on the cross. According to the new testament we are to love our enemies. There is no justification for killing witches or missionaries in the New Testament.So basically you're admitting that your moral system is not objective - it changes.You also seem to be assuming that the sacrifical atonement of Jesus is somehow not incoherent, and you're assuming that (contrary to the claims coming from Jesus' mouth in the Gospels) the OT laws are no longer relevant.

Rick, you base your claims upon shifting sands, and then have the audacity to criticise others for not accepting them. Such arrogance!

Rick: However, there is no objective basis for atheist morality ad therefore there is no objective basis for stating that bestiality is immoral according to relativistic materialistic atheism.Argument by assertion coupled with complete ignorance of moral philosophy (including your own).Please demonstrate that:1) What you mean by objective.2) That morality is actually objective in this way.3) That God is required for this sort of morality.

Rick: You offered that evolution is the basis of your moral decision making with regard to bestiality, but evolution is a-moral and does not offer any logical basis for such types of universal moral decision making.Once again, I believe you are completely misunderstanding Reynolds point, and evolution generally.Evolution has furnished us with things like altruistic behaviours, bonding with others, etc. These things form the basis of our moral behaviour. Evolution has also furnished us with the ability to reason, and this ability, coupled with our basic moral "emotions", is what we use to make moral decisions, to rationally consider moral claims, etc.This sort of morality can be objective in some sense, in that it is mind independant, but not objective in the way I think you require of it.

Unfortunately for you, postulating God doesn't seem to get you morality of the sort you require, and so you end up with nothing more than posturing of the sort you display here.

RickAfter telling me to "be more logical" you post:Here is what you linked to:

So then according to your post about More Evidence That False Philosophies Lead To Sick Societies so then would you be willing to agree that your philosophy is false then, do the the centuries of grief it'c caused: heretic killing, "witch"-killing, crusades, the murdering missionaries

Do I have to spoonfeed you, Rick? It's the latter part of that link that shoots down your point here.

The first part was referring to something else you had said in that particular thread.

The part that I had quoted in my reply above is the part that shoots down your arguement here that Myer's "silence" implies consent.

I had quoted that segment Rick, to avoid just such "misunderstandings". How could you miss it?

After all:Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 2, 2008 8:26 PM PZ Myers condones creationism, pseudoscience, and Biblical literalism. He's actually written that it shouldn't be criminalized, nor the perpetrators put in jail. So let's photoshop his head onto a televangelist and all have a snicker. That's where it leads, that sort of condoning.There is is again! Catch it this time?

Seriously, huh? How could you miss that? You pretend to be a well-read person but when someone gives a link to a short post, you totally miss the point. How?

Good grief. I had that part from that link QUOTED in that very reply that you're referring to!

In the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.

Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address valid critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence." However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.

Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics). If a third person, a civilized person, believes that Havok has offered a valid point and would like to summarize it in some type of logical format, I would be willing to entertain it. In any event, Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.

I'm not certain why you have such a difficult time with reading comprehension.

You should brush up on that before you start throwing around accusations of other people's not being able to make coherent points.

You completely miss the point of one of my posts, even when I had quoted it for you. You totally missed the part that I had quoted and jump onto a totally irrelevent part.

As I had said: That was the reason I had quoted the relevent part in my reply.

Then once you had it pointed out to you so you know which part to read (even though it was already quoted once!), you go and call it "gibberish".

Let me try and explain it to you once again.

One of your points in your previous reply (#6 in fact) was that Myer's "silence" regarding bestiality meant that he approved of it.

I went and quoted from a post from Myer's blog on that topic which gave an example of how stupid that kind of thinking was

Have you been able to figure it out yet?

Here, let me (try to) help you (again):6. If someone is apathetic towards something, then he is not against it. The maxim is - silence equals consent.Silence does NOT necessarily equal consent. Now watch. The part below is an analogy that illustrates that point. Ready?

PZ Myers condones creationism, pseudoscience, and Biblical literalism. He's actually written that it shouldn't be criminalized, nor the perpetrators put in jail. So let's photoshop his head onto a televangelist and all have a snicker. That's where it leads, that sort of condoning.

Skatjie Myers also made the same point in her quote which you claim that I "misquoted", by the way.

So...have you fired off that email to her yet?

Or do I have to break out the crayons and draw pictures for you to get it?

Reynold: Or maybe Havoc could try and explain it to you?Hey, don't drag me into this. I'm pretty convinced that Rick is incapable of reasoned, honest dialogue.

I mostly come here for the LOLZ, and to let him know that his fantasies are not reality, regardless of how strongly he believes in them :-)

I also thoroughly enjoy his hypocrisy - freely calling people liars and dishonest (Citing Romans 1 as evidence), and then throwing a hissy fit when he is shown to have been lying and dishonest (the comments he links to in his childish "spam filter" comments, which demonstrate his dishonesty, and which remain unaddressed), insisting that people who disagree with him must prove with logical certainty that they're correct, while taking something remotely plausible about his position as indicating that it is eminently probable.

His entire style of argumentation, and the thought procesess (if they can be called that) he displays are a fantastic study of the various biases that can and do afflict people's thinking.

It's interesting, entertaining, funny and sad, all at the same time :-)

>PZ Myers condones creationism, pseudoscience, and Biblical literalism. He's actually written that it shouldn't be criminalized, nor the perpetrators put in jail.

- If you are presenting this as some kind of analogy with bestiality, then it's poor for a number of reasons.

1. Definition of condone: Verb: Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

2. Whatever PZ has "actually written" (and you've provided no quote on this) PZ Myers is considered a New Atheist. Here are some references:

A: Myers is an unrepentant New Atheist, unsurprisingly he has outspoken opinions on many controversial subjects connected with atheism - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Zachary_Myers

B. PZ's own quote: I don’t believe in fighting against the little social accommodations people necessarily make to get by. I do believe in fighting hard against bad ideas... If you are in the latter camp, you’re a New Atheist. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/14/a-common-atheist-delusion/

3. New Atheism defined at the New Atheism website: Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.

http://newatheism.org/

2. So, Reynold, according to you intuitions, "condoning" and accepting' things like creationism somehow means "fighting hard" against it, according to PZ...

And, as a New Atheist, "Intolerance" and "a disregard for tolerance" are a form of condoning theism???

As I noted, Reynold, you seem to enjoy making ncoherent points.

What is most entertaining of all is that the New Atheism website calls for the "Indoctrination of logic" when the polar opposite is the reality.

http://newatheism.org/

Theists such as William Lane Craig use logical arguments with logical syntax and logical summaries, but atheists avoid logic like the plague:

That is why New Atheists such as PZ Myers is especially ripe for satire.

You can photoshop images of my head as much as you want to, I don't care, because, unlike Myers, Dawkins and Law, I want people to read my logical, summarized arguments. I don't need to be asked five times to present one simple summarized logical arguments, as is the case these educated yet ignorant peddlers of sophism.

New Atheism does not promote logic in any way shape or form, it promotes intolerance and hatred based on illogical presuppositions. One of the first articles I wrote on Richard Dawkins outlines this:

Rick, you are either really stupid, or really dishonest. Let's go over just one of your posts, shall we?

Rick- Show a link to the exact place where you believe Myers' daughter makes that exact quote, "I do not support bestiality."

- You are the one who needs to clarify quotes, not me. All the quotes in my article have links to sources. You are the one who seems to be pulling quotes out of thin air.

Show the link to the original quote you claim was made by her:

"I do not support bestiality."

Easily done. In fact, in the my very previous post I had that same link to her comment on Myer's blog and I had the quote itself.

So, even after being given both the link and the quote itself you pretend that I had not done so.

And to top it off, you claim that "new atheism" promotes illogic and intolerance?

What does xianity promote? From what I'm reading of you:

1) intellectual pretensions2) dishonesty3) hypocrisy

I had already given the link, and the full quote.

If you had any integrity at all at this point, you'd apologize.

Even when faced with the evidence (again!) you won't though, will you?

Havok was right...you are a liar. The posts linked to are proof.

I'm so glad I'm saving these pages as I go along...

So, instead of blowing off hypocritial smoke like you have in your latest "reply" are you going to deal with the facts when they're presented to you, or are you going to find some other excuse to dodge?

But as long as the dishonesty and hypocrisy are in service to his ideology, he doesn't seem to see a problem with it (in himself and in others, like Barton) - like WLC's "ministerial" use of reason (following Luther and Calvin I believe), Rick seems to adhere to "ministerial" uses of truth.

Reynold, sometimes people use these funny little things called quotation marks so people can discern their own summations from actual quotes.It's why I generally use italics. I also said that it was a quote. Sometimes I even bolded the quotes.

Forgive me if I overestimated your reading ability. You may also want to stop blaming your bugger-ups on other people.

Somewhere in between her flip-flopped statements daddy may have told her she has to be careful about what she writes.I suppse that you would be able to back up this claim of your, eh Rick?

Rick: In the case that she is quoted as such, then she's just another atheist relativist flip-flopper who doesn't seem to hold her opinion for any great length of time."Head I win, tails you lose".

See Reynold, arguments or evidence can never penetrate Rick's shield of ignorance and arrogance - he's right, he knows he's right, so therefore everyone else must be wrong, regardless of whether they're in reality wrong or not.

"Even if you allow the possibility that 'consensual sex' between humans and animals exists, this point is not a moral foundation and Skatje's rationale isn't very convincing. Skatje does not address the deeper aspect of human exceptionalism. If there is no human exceptionalism then human cannibalism would be acceptable as well, just as fish eating other fish is considered perfectly natural. Not only is bestiality unnatural, statistics show it isn't so great for health and society. Research shows that bestiality causes penile cancer[8] and those who practice it are more likely to commit violence and sex crimes.[9] These statistics offer evidence that morality has an objective basis, confirming the maxim that sin isn't bad because it's forbidden, it's forbidden because it's bad.

While vehemently defending his daughters views on bestiality, PZ Myers had an opportunity to clarify his personal views on the subject, but he chose not to. If he wants to draw criticism away from his daughter, then why can't he 'be a man' and clearly outline his own views on the subject? It's anyone's guess what views Skatje Myers' holds on this subject today because she's already made one major flip-flop on this subject. She went from this opinion: "I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals." To this one, "I do not support bestiality." -In a comment posted January 2, 2008 at PZ Myers' blog.[10]"

Rick: Now I suppose you will claim she did not flip-flop...Since the two flip-flopping statements are compatible, there is no evidence that she flip-flopped.For instance, I don't support the legality of smoking cigarettes because I want to light up. But I do not support smoking.Basically, I support it being up to the individual, but I also think it should be condemned as the ugly and unhealthy habit that it is.

You see how those two statements can be compatible Rick?I'll assume no, since you have shown no capacity for critical thinking or reassessing your position.

Warden-I'm not sure why Reynold keeps bringing up this subject. It seems to be a favorite of his.I'm just trying to get you to live up to truth as opposed to lies and slander.

It was a partial response to what you said about your capability to "intentially malign" someone.I gave an example, with links to show that you had no right to play the victim: Your slander against Myers and his daughter.

You pretend that your worldview is the only one that can account for honesty or "truth", yet you have no problem with lies of omission, as can be seen from our argument here.

You are a moral hypocrite: You say that you don't allow ad-hom attacks on your blog, yet they make up a huge amount of your posts when you talk about athiests like Myers, Dawkins, etc.

Then, when you're called on it, you either try to justify it or give worthless updates that really don't change a damned thing.

Just the kind of behaviour that Skatje anticipated:Although that's what everyone's trying to make it look like I do. I guess squawking about "Those evil Darwinists will have all our children completely apathetic about bestiality! They won't even demand locking zoophiles up in prison!" doesn't sound as nice.

The ad-homs continue with your latest comment:-I'm not sure why Reynold keeps bringing up this subject. It seems to be a favorite of his.

I can't force you to try and write more clearly and accurately, I can only offer suggestions. It seems that your two main problems are using specific words accurately and using quotation marks to help show where your comments end and where someone else's begin. If you don't want to try to be accurate and clear, then it does not make very much sense to blame others when your ideas are not immediately understood.

When I asked you for proof that I had "slandered" PZ Myers you offered the following quote,

"PZ Myers is apparently not opposed to bestiality"

In order to show that this is unsubstantiated, you should probably offer some kind of evidence. Did you show that Myers is opposed to bestiality? No, you didn't. Did I show some reasons why it seems he may not be opposed to it? Yes, I did. Therefore, it is you, Reynold, who is the one doing the slandering by stating I am slandering. I have points that back up my claims. You, instead change the subject to PZ Myerrs' daughter because you have no basis for your claims about PZ.

In terms of his daughter, at the end of the day, when I was finally able to discern from your writing what paraphrases are and what quotes are (no thanks to your lack of quotation marks) I acknowledged that Myers has flip-flopped on her views. Why did she do this? She did not say, apparently. In simply stating the obvious and documenting people's actual quotes and lack of quotes, there is no slander, Reynold. Your unsubstantiated claims, however, are slander.

R:In order to show that this is unsubstantiated, you should probably offer some kind of evidence. Did you show that Myers is opposed to bestiality? No, you didn't.

Shifting the burden of proof. You are the one with a claim so you are the one who should present the evidence. So far you failed to do so, since the satire Myers used does not imply he favors bestiality

WardenI can't force you to try and write more clearly and accurately, I can only offer suggestions. It seems that your two main problems are using specific words accurately and using quotation marks to help show where your comments end and where someone else's begin.

Are you still playing this stupid blame game? You never complained about my not using quotation marks until I caught you ignoring what I had posted. THEN you use that excuse to shift the blame for your own errors on to me.

>NOTE - I will note again how Warden has not given any indication that he emailed Myer's daughter to get her opinion on my "misquoting" her as I told him to do.

- Yes, Reynold, you did already recommend, I mean, command me, to write a letter asking for more clarity on this subject.

However, if I were to receive a personal email there could be some doubt as to what it actually says based on your lack of trust in me. It seems it would be better to write an open letter and receive an open response. Do you agree? It would also seem helpful to know for certain where PZ Myers stands on this subject. Under these circumstances I may consider writing an open letter, if you truly believe that writing a letter is so important. Would you be satisfied in that case?

That's why I sent you my email as well, so that both of us would be able to see your letter (and I could be sure that you hadn't distorted anything I or they said) and both of us would get the response.

So yeah, an open letter, sure.

Let's face it: Your track record about this topic and as Havok has pointed out in that other case shows you to be not trustworthy.

Don't go whining to me about me "commanding" you to write a letter.

For bullshit like you pulled, you'd be lucky to not be taken to court.

As per your request to write a letter, I Wrote a letter as a blog pot (see new blog post) and sent PZ an email asking him and/or his daughter to respond. Maybe you can post a comment at PZ's blog inviting him to answer these questions.

From an evangelical historian, on Barton's lies:Thomas Jefferson attended a religious service in the U.S. capitol shortly after he wrote the famous letter to the Danbury Baptists proclaiming a "wall of separation between Church and State." This is true. And it raises all kinds of questions about his use of that phrase.

Over two hundred years later David Barton appeared in the U.S. Capitol building and tells a story about George Washington that has been proven over and over again to be false. At what point do we call Barton a "deceiver" or a "liar?"

Let's see from the site which quotes Barton saying:Now, that's why the Constitution's a problem. Look at Article III, Section 1, the treason clause--direct quote out of the Bible. You look at ,Article II, the quote on the President [having] to be native-born--,that is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, look at how many clauses come out [of the Bible]. That drives the secularists nuts, because the Bible is all over [the Constitution]. Now, we as Christians don't tend to recognize that. We think it's a secular document--we've bought into their lies. It's not.

Here is Article II which Barton mentioned:No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.

Now Deuteronomy 17:15:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

So one talks about a KING chosen by GOD, the other refers to a PRESIDENT which is chosen by the people!

I guess it's verbatim if, like Barton, you're a lying delusional fool trying to impose theocracy. Barton is just like Humpty Dumpty:“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”Verbatim in this instance must mean "absolutely nothing like".

As they say there, "Wow. We know how much the Discovery Institute needs to feed on disinformation and polemics. That one of their leaders had to reject Barton’s book is a strong indication that the book must be really, really, really bad!"

Of course Rick is still happy to fully endorse Barton's lies, because they comport well with the delusional narrative Rick has set up for himself.

He gave us what we wanted. But now David Barton has been credibly charged with serious distortions of his own.

I am no historian, so I am in no position to form an independent judgment of his veracity. Few of us are. But that doesn’t excuse our eager acceptance of his inaccuracies. With a bit of care, any of us could have known of the serious questions that have surrounded Barton’s work for a long time. These recent revelations are nothing new, except in the degree to which conservative Christian scholars are involved in calling him to account.

Right...only after years of people like Chris Rodda publicly exposing Barton's lies, now it's "conservative xian scholars" who are FINALLY catching up|

Here's another quote from that ministries' site which encompasses the entire problem:

Nevertheless we became for him a devoted cadre of disciples. We knew our country’s founding principles were vitally important. However, so is historical accuracy. It looks as if Barton compromised one to make a case for the other.

Believing what one wants to believe: If that doesn't sum up the religious right's mindset, I don't know what does.